Here he goes again dismantling Wisconsin. The properties could include state power and heating plants, like he wanted to do last year. I thought he claimed we had a State surplus now due to his budget. If so, why does he need to sell off State property?

fennel wrote:It's all about handing off public assets to the private sector. The polite term for it is looting, but I have a stunning hunch nobody is going to call out the National Guard.

Property that cost you money to keep does not qualify as an asset.

I'm not sure where you took your economics courses, but you should demand your money back. Do you own a home? Your home costs money to keep, and it is an asset. Likewise your car. Since you don't consider these as assets, you should be more than willing to give them to me. After all, they're just costing you money, and you can give them to me and not have to keep them up.

Donald wrote:I'm not sure where you took your economics courses, but you should demand your money back. Do you own a home? Your home costs money to keep, and it is an asset. Likewise your car. Since you don't consider these as assets, you should be more than willing to give them to me. After all, they're just costing you money, and you can give them to me and not have to keep them up.

Donald wrote:I'm not sure where you took your economics courses, but you should demand your money back. Do you own a home? Your home costs money to keep, and it is an asset. Likewise your car. Since you don't consider these as assets, you should be more than willing to give them to me. After all, they're just costing you money, and you can give them to me and not have to keep them up.

I think you missed the point entirely Mr economics.

Oh, I see. When you get around to figuring out what your point was, let us know so we can respond appropriately. I thought it had something to do with what you wrote, but apparently what you wrote had nothing to do with the point you were making. Either you or I slipped down the rabbit hole.*

What is amusing is that if it were Doyle or any Governor with a D you'd be harping about how it's never a good idea to sell off state properties. It always turns out you need them later. Every single time.

When the state makes highway improvements they sometimes end up with more land than they use, reselling these odd lots which then go back on the property tax rolls is a perfectly reasonable idea. Quit hating for a minute and use your head. And do you really think your electric bill would go down if the state was running all the power plants?

Who said all? Not me. First consider the one right here at the University, though other state schools have similar arrangements. Why is it better to privatize that? For one thing, private power companies cannot borrow at a rate as low as the university can. For another thing, the university itself is a public entity, it's the chief user of the power generated, and it's to the public benefit to keep the cost of that power down since the public is paying for it.

In addition, until the present state administration, the power plant was slated to change over to biomass fuel. This would have been a fine public demonstration of the usability of non-petroleum fuel for power generation, but was shot down for reasons we can speculate on in a different topic (or not). The current administration preferred continued use of coal.

Of course remnant lots should be sold off. The city of Madison does this regularly. Nickel and dime stuff, for the most part, and usually the only bidder is the person owning the adjacent property.